Sleep duration and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to examine the associations between sleep duration and health outcomes in adults. Four electronic databases were searched in December 2018 for systematic reviews published in the previous 10 years. Included reviews met the a priori determined population (community-dwelling adults aged 18 years and older), intervention/exposure/comparator (various levels of sleep duration), and outcome criteria (14 outcomes examined). To avoid overlap in primary studies, we used a priority list to choose a single review per outcome; reviews that examined the effect of age and those that looked at dose–response were prioritized. A total of 36 systematic reviews were eligible and 11 were included. Reviews included comprised 4 437 101 unique participants from 30 countries. Sleep duration was assessed subjectively in 96% of studies and 78% of studies in the reviews were prospective cohort studies. The dose–response curves showed that the sleep duration that was most favourably associated with health was 7–8 h per day. Modification of the effect by age was not apparent. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to high across health outcomes. In conclusion, the available evidence suggests that a sleep duration of 7–8 h per day is the one most favourably associated with health among adults and older adults. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019119529.) Novelty This is the first overview of reviews that examines the influence of sleep duration on a wide range of health outcomes in adults. Seven to 8 h of sleep per day was most favourably associated with health. Effect modification by age was not evident.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".